similar to: [LLVMdev] GSoC 2012 Proposal: Automatic GPGPU code generation for llvm

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Yabin Hu <yabin.hwu at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I am a phd student from Huazhong University of Sci&Tech, China. The > following is my GSoC 2012 proposal. > Comments are welcome! > > *Title: Automatic GPGPU Code Generation for LLVM* > > *Abstract* > Very often, manually developing an GPGPU application is a

Hi Yabin, Instead of compile the LLVM IR to PTX asm string in a ScopPass, you can also the improve llc/lli or create new tools to support the code generation for Heterogeneous platforms[1], i.e. generate code for more than one target architecture at the same time. Something like this is not very complicated and had been implemented[2,3] by some people, but not available in LLVM mainstream.

Hi Justin, 2012/4/3 Justin Holewinski <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> > *Motivation* >> With the broad proliferation of GPU computing, it is very important to >> provide an easy and automatic tool to develop or port the applications to >> GPU for normal developers, especially for those domain experts who want to >> harness the huge computing power of GPU. Polly

Hi Justin, the non-translatable IR with GPU code replaced by appropriate CUDA Driver > API calls. One of CUDA driver apis (cuLaunch) need a ptx asm string as its input. So if I want to provide a one-touch solution and don't introduce any changes to tools outside polly, I must prepare the ptx string before I can generate the correct non-translatable IR part. As your suggestion, It may

On 04/03/2012 03:13 PM, Hongbin Zheng wrote: > Hi Yabin, > > Instead of compile the LLVM IR to PTX asm string in a ScopPass, you > can also the improve llc/lli or create new tools to support the code > generation for Heterogeneous platforms[1], i.e. generate code for more > than one target architecture at the same time. Something like this is > not very complicated and had

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:49 AM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > On 04/03/2012 03:13 PM, Hongbin Zheng wrote: > > Hi Yabin, > > > > Instead of compile the LLVM IR to PTX asm string in a ScopPass, you > > can also the improve llc/lli or create new tools to support the code > > generation for Heterogeneous platforms[1], i.e. generate code for

Thanks for the heads up Philip ! I did come across a strange case where LLVM allowed "%" to be a part of a function's name. This was in the context of my patch https://reviews.llvm.org/D33985, where I prefix the name of the source function and the Scop ( A special kind of Region that Polly can optimize, the name of the Scop is the name of the Region ) to the name of the PTX kernel

** *Hi everyone,As you may know, stock LLVM does not provide the kind of advanced loop transformations necessary to provide good performance on many applications. LLVM's Polly project provides many of the required capabilities, including loop transformations such as fission, fusion, skewing, blocking/tiling, and interchange, all powered by state-of-the-art dependence analysis. Polly also

Hal, Tobias, et al. – I am strongly in favor of seeing a broader range of loop transformations, supported by strong dependence analysis, added to LLVM, and the Polly infrastructure seems to be by far our best bet to make that happen. I have a couple of questions: 1) Integer constraint libraries like ISL (and Omega, which I used extensively in a previous project) are fundamentally solving

On 09/11/2017 12:26 PM, Adam Nemet wrote: > Hi Hal, Tobias, Michael and others, > >> On Sep 1, 2017, at 11:47 AM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> ** >> >> *Hi everyone,As you may know, stock LLVM does not provide the kind of >> advanced loop transformations

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017, at 20:49, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev wrote: > [tying to original thread] > > On 09/04/2017 01:37 PM, Adve, Vikram Sadanand via llvm-dev wrote: > > Hal, Tobias, et al. – > > > > I am strongly in favor of seeing a broader range of loop transformations, supported by strong dependence analysis, added to LLVM, and the Polly infrastructure seems to be by far

Hi Hal, Tobias, Michael, and others, I'd like to add my view (and a proposal) to this discussion and I apologize directly for doing this so late*. I also want to apologize because this email is long, contains various technical details and also argumentations that might need more justification. However, I am happy to provide further information (and/or examples) to explain my views if

Hi Justin, Thanks very much for your comments. 2012/4/28 Justin Holewinski <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Yabin Hu <yabin.hwu at gmail.com> wrote: > >> The attached patch adds a new Intrinsic named "llvm.codegen" to support >> embedded LLVM IR code generation. **The 'llvm.codegen' intrinsic uses >> the

Thank You Chen ! On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 5:21 PM 陳韋任 <chenwj.cs97g at g2.nctu.edu.tw> wrote: > Perhaps you can refer to [1]. Function name should be a global one. > > [1] http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#identifiers > > HTH, > chenwj > > > 2017-06-22 16:35 GMT+08:00 SANJAY SRIVALLABH SINGAPURAM via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > >>

Hello everyone I was wondering, what the correct way of using an AMDGPU generated kernel code for OpenCL was. I am trying to provide Polly's GPGPU Code generation with the ability to run on different GPU devices, such as AMD GPUs. For NVIDIA, I simply retrieve a pre-compiled PTX string from the NVPTX backend and pass that to OpenCL's 'clCreateProgramWithBinary' function. However,

A completely non-technical point, but what's the current "polly" license? Does integrating that code conflict in any way with the work being done to relicense llvm? Does adding polly expose any additional legal risks? Some people from Reservoir labs have explicitly stated to me that some of their patents target polyhedral optimizations. You should almost certainly review their

> On Sep 11, 2017, at 10:47 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On 09/11/2017 12:26 PM, Adam Nemet wrote: >> Hi Hal, Tobias, Michael and others, >> >>> On Sep 1, 2017, at 11:47 AM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >>> >>>

On 04/28/2012 10:25 AM, Yabin Hu wrote: > Hi Justin, > > Thanks very much for your comments. > > 2012/4/28 Justin Holewinski <justin.holewinski at gmail.com > <mailto:justin.holewinski at gmail.com>> > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Yabin Hu <yabin.hwu at gmail.com > <mailto:yabin.hwu at gmail.com>> wrote: > > The

Hal, I'm opening a new discussion on vectorization metadata, since it has little to do with fp-math. ;) What kind of metadata would you annotate in the instructions? If I remember from your talk, you're not doing any loop or whole-function analysis, possibly leaving it for Polly to help you along the way. I remember discussing it with Tobias that Polly could have three main steps: 1.

Hi, I just have a detail look at the code of Polly[1], it seems that Polly start to support some basic auto-parallelization stuffs. I have some idea to improve the current auto-vectorization and parallelization approach in Polly. The main idea is, we separate the transform passes and codegen passes for auto-parallelization and vectorization (Graphite[2] for gcc seems to taking similar approach